PERCEIVED RISK, TRUST, AND THE
POLITICS OF NUCLEAR WASTE
Paul Slovic, James H. Flynn, and Mark Layman
The authors are affiliated with Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401.
Slovic is also a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 2
Summary
The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has
been impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk.
Analysis of these perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that
have been present since the discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear
weapons linked these images to reality and the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the
nation's military weapons facilities has (contributed toward creating a profound state of distrust
that cannot be erased quickly or easily. As a result, siting and development of a national
repository for disposal of radioactive wastes is unlikely to be feasible in the foreseeable future.
Key Words: risk perception, risk management, trust, nuclear waste, nuclear power.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 3
By the year 2000, the United States will have a projected 40,000 metric tons of spent
nuclear fuel stored at some 70 sites and awaiting disposal. By 2035, after all existing nuclear
plants have completed 40 years of operation, there will be approximately 85,000 metric tons (1).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been under intense pressure from Congress and the
nuclear industry to dispose of this accumulating volume of high-level waste since the passage
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 and its amendment in 1987, by which Yucca Mountain,
Nevada was selected as the only candidate site for the nation's first nuclear waste repository.
The lack of a suitable solution to the waste problem is widely viewed as an obstacle to further
development of nuclear power and a threat to the continued operation of existing reactors,
besides being a safety hazard in its own right.
Yet, at this time, the DOE program has been brought almost to a halt by overwhelming
political opposition, fueled by perceptions of the public that the risks are immense (2-7). These
perceptions stand in stark contrast to the prevailing view of the technical community, which
believes that nuclear wastes can be disposed of safely, in deep underground isolation (8-10).
Officials from DOE, the nuclear industry, and their technical experts are profoundly puzzled,
frustrated, and disturbed by public and political opposition that many of them believe is based
on irrationality and ignorance. Lewis (9), for example, argues that the risk from a properly
constructed repository "... is as negligible as it is possible to imagine ... It is
embarrassingly easy to solve the technical problems, yet impossible to solve the political
problems . . . High-level nuclear waste disposal is a non-risk" (pp. 245-246).
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 4
A number of important events during the past several years underscore the seriousness
of this problem.
1. Official opposition by the State of Nevada has increased substantially. In June, 1989,
the Nevada legislature passed Assembly Bill 222, making it unlawful for any person or
governmental entity to store high-level radioactive waste in the state. The state attorney general
subsequently issued an opinion that the Yucca Mountain site had been effectively vetoed under
a provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Governor instructed state agencies to
disregard DOE's applications for environmental permits necessary to investigate the site. The
state and DOE initiated federal lawsuits over continuance of the program and issuance of the
permits needed for on-site studies. In September 1990, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that the state had acted improperly and ordered Nevada officials to issue the permits.
Nevada appealed to the Supreme Court, which let stand the prior ruling. Although state officials
have, under duress, begun to accept and process DOE permit applications, the governor and
other elected officials have announced that their opposition to the repository will not diminish.
2. In November 1989, the DOE, admitting dissatisfaction with its technical assessments
of the Yucca Mountain site, announced that it would essentially start over with, "for the first
time," an integrated, responsible plan. This plan would subject technical studies to close outside
scrutiny to ensure that decisions about Yucca Mountain would be made "solely on the basis of
solid scientific evidence" (11).
3. In July, 1990, the National Research Council's Board on Radioactive Waste
Management issued a strong critique of the DOE program, charging that DOE's insistence on
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 5
doing everything right the first time has misled the public by promising unattainable levels of
safety under a rigid schedule that is "... unrealistic, given the inherent uncertainties of this
unprecedented undertaking," and thus vulnerable to "'show stopping' problems and delays that
could lead to a further deterioration of public and scientific trust" (12, p. 1). The Board
recommended, instead, a more flexible approach, permitting design and engineering changes as
new information becomes available during repository construction and operation.
Perceptions of risk from radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste play a pivotal role
in this story and need to be thoroughly understood if we are to make any progress in resolving
the current impasse. In this article, we summarize research that attempts to penetrate the surface
veneer of nuclear fear and opposition and provide insight into the nature of people's concerns,
the origins of these concerns, the emotions that underlie them, and their implications for policy.
Attitude and Opinion Surveys
There have been more than a dozen surveys conducted during the past five years to assess
public attitudes and opinions regarding the management of high-level radioactive wastes
(2,5,13,14,15). The picture that emerges is uniformly negative.
One of the more extensive surveys was conducted in the Fall of 1989 by Flynn et al.
(15). More than 2500 respondents were questioned by telephone with regard to their perceptions
of the risks and benefits associated with a nuclear waste repository, their support or opposition
for the DOE repository program, their trust in the ability of DOE to manage the program, and
their views on a variety of other issues pertaining to radioactive-waste disposal. In addition to
a national survey, data were collected from two other populations of special interest: residents
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 6
of Nevada, the state selected as the site for the proposed national repository, and residents of
Southern California, the major source of visitors to Nevada.
When asked to indicate the closest distance they would be willing to live from each of
10 facilities, the median distance from an underground nuclear waste repository was 200 miles
in each of the three surveys, twice the distance from the next most undesirable facility, a
chemical-waste landfill, and three to eight times the distances from oil refineries, nuclear-power
plants, and pesticide-manufacturing plants. In response to the statement "Highway and rail
accidents will occur in transporting the wastes to the repository site," the percentage of
respondents who agreed or strongly agreed was 77.4% in Nevada, 69.2% in California, and
71.6% nationally. Similar expectations of problems were expressed with regard to future
earthquake or volcanic activity at the site, contamination of underground water supplies, and
accidents while handling the material during burial operations.
When asked whether a state that does not produce high-level nuclear wastes should serve
as a site for a nuclear waste repository, 67.9% of the Southern California and 76.0% of the
national respondents answered "no" (the question was not asked in Nevada). A majority of those
polled in the Southern California and national surveys judged a single national repository to be
the least fair of five disposal options (the other options were storage at each nuclear plant, in
each state, in each of several regions, and dual repositories in the East and West).
Strong distrust of the DOE was evident from the responses to statements such as "The
U.S. Departmentof Energy can be trusted to provide prompt and full disclosureof any accidents
or serious problems with their nuclear waste management programs." In Southern California,
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 7
67.5% either somewhat or strongly disagreed with this statement. The corresponding rate of
disagreement in the national survey was 68.1%.
Nevadans were asked whether or not they would vote in favor of a repository at Yucca
Mountain; 69.4% said they would vote against it, compared to 14.4% who would vote for it.
About 68% of the Nevadans surveyed said they agreed strongly with the statement "The State
of Nevada should do all it can to stop the repository;" another 12.5% agreed somewhat with this
statement; only 16.0% disagreed. When asked whether or not they favored Assembly Bill 222,
making it illegal to dispose of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada, 74% were in favor and
18.4% were opposed. Finally, 73.6% of Nevadans said that the state should continue to do all
it can to oppose the repository even if that means turning down benefits that may be offered by
the federal government; 19.6% said the state should stop fighting and make a deal.
Follow-up surveys of Nevada residents in October 1990 and March 1991 suggest that
opposition and distrust have continued to rise (16). The percentage of Nevadans who would vote
against a repository at Yucca Mountain increased from 69.4% to 80.2%. In response to a
request to indicate "how much you trust each of the following to do what is right with regard
to a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain," the governor of Nevada topped the list of
officials, agencies, and institutions. DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the
U.S. Congress were the least trusted entities. Between 1989 and 1991, strong increases in trust
were evident for the governor of Nevada and the Nevada State Legislature. In contrast, trust
in DOE and NRC declined between 1989 and 1991.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 8
Imagery and Perception
Prior to answering any of the attitude or opinion questions, respondents in the national,
Southern California, and Nevada surveys, along with respondents in a survey of 802 residents
of Phoenix, were asked to free-associate to the concept of a nuclear waste repository (7). The
method of continued associations (17) was used to evoke images, perceptions, and affective
states related to a repository. Respondents were asked to indicate the first thoughts or images
that come to mind when they think of an underground nuclear waste repository.
The 3,334 respondents in the four surveys produced a combined total of exactly 10,000
word-association images to the repository stimulus. The associations were examined and
assigned to 13 general categories (78). All but one general category contained subcategories.
In all, there were 92 distinct subcategories. Many of these contained multiple associations,
judged to have similar meanings. For example, the subcategory labeled dangerous/toxic, within
the general category labeled negative consequences, included the terms danger, dangerous,
unsafe, disaster, hazardous, poisonous, and so on.
Table 1 presents the two largest categories, negative consequences and negative concepts,
and their combined frequencies across all four samples. The subcategories are also shown,
ordered by frequency within their superordinate category. The most arresting and most
important finding is the extreme negative quality of these images. These two largest categories
accounted for more than 56% of the total number of images. The dominant subcategory,
dangerous/toxic, contained almost 17% of the total number of images. The five largest
subordinate categories—dangerous/toxic (la), death/sickness (lb), environmental damage (Ic),
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 9
bad/negative (He), and scary (lib)—were thoroughly negative in affective quality and accounted
for more than 42% of the total number of images. The four most frequent single associations
were dangerous (n = 539), danger (n = 378), death (n = 306), and pollution (n = 276).
Positive imagery was rare. A general category labeled positive accounted for only 1%
of the images. Other positive concepts, necessary, employment, and money/income combined
to total only 2.5% of the images. The response safe was given only 37 times (0.37%). In
addition, there were 232 associations pertaining to war, annihilation, weapons, and things
military. The famous NIMBY position (not in my backyard) was expressed in 273 images.
Associations indicative of distrust appeared in Category JJj, negative towarddecision makers and
process, and in another subcategory dealing with mistakes. A number of images in the
bad/negative category also seemed to reflect lack of trust (e.g., stupid, dumb, illogical).
Jones et al. (19) have attempted to characterize the key dimensions of stigma. Two such
defining characteristics are peril and negative aesthetic qualities (ugliness, repulsion). These
qualities dominate the repository images. Peril is pervasive throughout Category I and negative
aesthetics and repulsion form the bulk of Category n. Indeed, the large subcategory Ua
(bad/negative) is remarkable in its reflection of antagonism and hostility toward the repository
concept. Common responses in this category were terrible, ugly, disgusting, anger, evil, insane,
hate it, and, simply, bad (107 responses). Associations indicating locations (desert, Nevada,
underground) and concepts such as radiation, nuclear, and chemicals made up the bulk of the
responses not covered in Table 1.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 10
The images were similar in content and frequency from one survey to another.
Demographic differences were also small. The negativity of repository images was remarkably
consistent across men and women of different ages, incomes, education levels, and political
persuasions.
After free-associating to the repository stimulus, each respondent in the Nevada survey
rated the affective quality of his or her associations on a five-point scale ranging from extremely
negative to extremely positive. These affective ratings were highly correlated with the
respondent's attitudes and perceptions of risk. For example, more than 90% of the persons
whose first image was judged very negative said they would vote against a repository at Yucca
Mountain; more than half of the persons whose first image was judged positive would vote in
favor of the repository. A similarly strong relationship was found between affective ratings of
images and a person's judgment of the likelihood of accidents or other problems at a repository.
Negativity of the image rating was also strongly related to support for the State of Nevada's
opposition to the repository program.
What was learned by asking 3334 people to associate freely to the concept of a nuclear
waste repository? The most obvious answer is that people don't like nuclear waste. However,
these images (as well as the responses to the attitude and opinion questions) demonstrate an
aversion so strong that to label it a "dislike" hardly does it justice. What these responses reveal
are pervasive qualities of dread, revulsion, and anger—the raw materials of stigmatization and
political opposition.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 11
Because nuclear waste is a by-product of an impressive technology capable of producing
massive amounts of energy without contributing to greenhouse gases, one might expect to find
associations to energy and its benefits—electricity, light, heat, employment, health, progress,
the good life—scattered among the images. Almost none were observed.
Moreover, people were not asked to reflect on nuclear waste; instead, they were asked
about a storage facility or repository. One might expect, following the predominant view of
experts in this field, to find a substantial number of repository images reflecting the qualities
"necessary" and "safe." Few images of this kind were observed.
How Did It Get This Way?
Imagery and attitudes so negative and so impervious to influence from the assessments
of technical experts must have very potent origins. Weart's historical analysis shows that
nuclear fears are deeply rooted in our social and cultural consciousness. He demonstrates that
modern thinking about nuclear energy employs beliefs and symbols that have been associated
for centuries with the concept of transmutation—the passage through destruction to rebirth. In
the early decades of the 20th century, transmutation images became centered on radioactivity,
which was associated with
"uncanny rays that brought hideous death or miraculous new life; with mad
scientists and their ambiguous monsters; with cosmic secrets of death and life;...
and with weapons great enough to destroy the world ..." (20, p. 421).
But this concept of transmutation has a duality that is hardly evident in the imagery
observed in the surveys. Why has the destructive aspect predominated? The answer likely
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 12
involves the bombing of Hiroshimaand Nagasaki, whichlinked the frightening imagesof nuclear
energy to reality. The sprouting of nuclear power in the aftermath of the atomic bombing led
Smith (21) to observe:
Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born in war, and first revealed to the
world in horror. No matter how much proponents try to separate the peaceful
from the weapons atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the minds of the
public, (p. 62)
Research supports Smith's assertions. Fiske, Pratto, and Pavelchak (22) elicited people's
images of nuclear war and obtained results that were similar to the repository images described
above. A study by Slovic, Lichtenstein, and Fischhoff (23) found that, even before the accident
at Three Mile Island (TMI), people expected nuclear-reactor accidents to lead to disasters of
immense proportions. When asked to describe the consequencesof a "typical reactor accident,"
people's scenarios were found to resemble scenarios of the aftermath of nuclear war (24). The
shared imagery of nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and nuclear waste may explain why a
nuclear waste repository is judged by the public to pose risks at least as great as a nuclear power
plant or a nuclear weapons test site (J).
Further insights into the specialqualityof nuclear fear are provided by Erikson (26), who
describes the exceptionally dread quality of accidents that expose people to radiation. Unlike
natural disasters, these accidents have no end. "Invisible contaminants remain a part of the
surroundings—absorbed into the grain of the landscape, the tissues of the body and, worst of
-Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 13
all, into the genetic material of the survivors. An 'all clear' is never sounded. The book of
accounts is never closed" (p. 121).
Another strong determiner of public perceptions is the continuing story of decades of
mishandling of wastes at the nation's military weapons facilities, operated by DOE (27).
Leakage from these facilities has resulted in widespread contamination, projected to require more
than $150 billion for cleanup over the next 30 years. The recent revelation of unprecedented
releases of radiation from the Hanford, Washington weapons plant in the 1940s and 1950s (28)
will certainly compound the negative imagery associated with a nuclear waste repository and
further undermine public trust in government management of nuclear-waste disposal.
A Crisis of Confidence
The fear and revulsion evoked in the general public by the thought of a nuclear waste
repository stand in contrast to the confidence that most technical analysts and engineers have in
their ability to dispose of radioactive materials safely. Even the report of the National Research
Council (12), though highly concerned about the difficulties of predicting the long-term
performance of a repository, conceded that "These uncertainties do not necessarily mean that
the risks are significant, nor that the public should reject efforts to site the repository" (12, p.
13).
Starr (29) has argued that "acceptance of any risk is more dependent on public confidence
in risk management than on the quantitative estimates of risk ..." (p. 98). Public fears and
opposition to nuclear-waste disposal plans can be seen as a "crisis of confidence," a profound
breakdown of trust in the scientific, governmental, and industrial managers of nuclear
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 14
technologies. The breakdown of trust was clearly evident at the time the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act was signed (30,31) and has been documented repeatedly in subsequent public opinion
surveys (2,15,32-34).
Viewing the nuclear-waste problem as one of distrust in risk management gives important
insights into its intractability. Social psychological studies (35) have validated "folk wisdom"
by demonstrating that trust is a quality that is quickly lost and slowly (if ever) regained. A
single act of embezzlement is enough to convince us that our bookkeeper is untrustworthy. A
subsequent opportunity to embezzle that is not taken would likely do little to reduce the degree
of distrust. Indeed, 100 subsequent honest actions would probably do little restore our trust in
this individual.
In this light, the attempt by DOE to regain the confidence of the public, the Congress,
and the nuclear industry by rearranging its organizational chart and promising to do a better job
of risk management and science in the future (11) was naive. Trust, once lost, cannot so easily
be restored. Similarly naive is the aim professed by DOE officials and other nuclear-industry
leaders to change perceptions and gain support by letting people see firsthand the safety of
nuclear-waste management. The nature of any low-probability, high-consequence threat is such
that adverse events will demonstrate riskiness but demonstrations of safety (or negligible risk)
will require a very long time, free of damaging incidents. The intense scrutiny given to nuclear
power and nuclear-waste issues by the news media (36,37) insures that a stream of problems,
occurring all over the world, will be brought to the public's attention, continually eroding trust.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 15
Where Next for Nuclear Waste?
Although everyone appreciates the sophisticated engineering required to store nuclear
wastes safely, the political requirements necessary to design and implement a repository have
not similarly been appreciated. As a result, notes Jacob (30):
"While vast resources have been expended on developing complex and
sophisticated technologies, the equally sophisticated political processes and
institutions required to develop a credible and legitimate strategy for nuclear
waste management have not been developed" (p. 164).
In the absence of a trustworthy process for siting, developing, and operating a nuclear
waste repository, the prospects for a short-term solution to the disposal problem seem remote.
The report of the National Research Council (12) is quite sensitive to issues of risk perception
and trust, but makes the strong assumption that trust can be restored by a process that openly
recognizes the limits of technical understanding and does not aim to "get it right the first time."
It seemslikely that such open admission of uncertainty and refusal to guarantee safety might well
have opposite effects from those intended—increased concern and further deterioration of trust.
Moreover, the National Research Council statement also assumes that DOE will continue to
manage the nuclear-waste program, thus failing to come to grips with the difficulties that agency
will face in restoring its tainted image.
The lack of a trustworthy process for siting, developing, and operating a nuclear waste
repository has evoked numerous other comments and suggestions. Weinberg (38) draws an
analogy between fear of witchesduring the 15th through 17thcenturies and today's fear of harm
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 16
from radiation. He hypothesizes that "rad-waste phobia" may dissipate if the intelligentsia (read
environmentalists) say that such fears are unfounded, much as eventually happened with fears
of witches. Carter (39) argued that "Trust will be gained by building a record of sure,
competent, open performance that gets good marks from independent technical peer reviewers
and that shows decent respect for the public's sensibilities and common sense" (p. 416). Others
have called for more radical changes, such as creating new organizations to take over DOE's
management role (40,41) and developing procedures to ensure that state, local, and tribal
governments have a strong voice in siting decisions and oversight of actual repository operations
(30,42,43). In this spirit, an official of the Canadian government has argued for making
repository siting in that country voluntary by requiring public consent as an absolute prerequisite
for confirming any decision (44).
Whatever steps are taken, it is unlikely that the current "crisis in confidence" will be
ended quickly or easily. We must settle in for a long effort to restore the public trust.
Krauskopf (45) has argued that postponing the repository to an indefinite future can be defended
on a variety of technical grounds and points out that the choice between repository construction
or postponement ultimately rests upon the shoulders of the public and their elected
representatives. The problems of perception and trust described above imply that postponement
of a permanent repository may be the only politically viable option in the foreseeable future.
In an address to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in
November, 1990, Joseph Rhodes, Jr., a commissioner from Pennsylvania, pointed out the
implications of the polls indicating that most Nevadans oppose the siting of a repository
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 17
anywhere in Nevada and want state leaders to oppose such siting with any means available (46).
"I can't imagine," said Rhodes, "that there will ever be a usable Yucca Mountain Repository if
the people of Nevada don't want it. . . There are just too many ways to delay the
program . . ." (p. 6) (47).
What are the options in the light of insurmountable public opposition to a permanent
underground repository? Rhodes lists and rejects several: (a) Continuing on the present path
in an attempt to site a permanent repository is a costly and doomed effort, (b) Permanent on-site
storage is unsafe, (c) Deploying a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) program is also
politically unacceptable. Without a viable program to develop a permanent repository, the MRS
would be seen, in effect, as the permanent site, (d) Reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel is also
politically unacceptable because of concerns over nuclear-weapons proliferation. Moreover,
reprocessing reduces but does not eliminate high-level wastes and the record of managing
reprocessing residues at West Valley, Hanford, and other sites is hardly encouraging (39).
Rhodes concludes, and we concur, that the only viable option is to postpone the siting
of a permanent repository and store the wastes on site in the interim—employing dry-cask
storage that has been certified by NRC as being as safe as geological storage for 100 or more
years (48). Should this course of action be followed, technical knowledge will undoubtedly
advance greatly during this interim period. Perceptions of risk and trust in government and the
nuclear industry may change greatly, too, if the problem of establishing and maintaining trust
is taken seriously.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 18
References
1. Third report to the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board, Arlington, VA, 1991).
2. R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft, E. A. Rosa, Eds., Public Opinion and Nuclear Waste:
Citizens' Views ofRepository Siting (Duke Univ. Press, Durham, NC, in press).
3. J. Flynn, P. Slovic, C. K. Mertz, W. Burns, Report No. 91-1 (Decision Research,
Eugene, OR, 1990).
4. R. Kasperson, in Proceedings of the International High-Level Radioactive Waste
Management Conference (Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1990).
5. H. Kunreuther, W. H. Desvousges, P. Slovic, Environment 30, 16 (1988).
6. S. M. Nealey and J. A. Hebert, in Too Hot to Handle: Social and Policy Issues in the
Management ofRadioactive Wastes, C. A. Walker, L. C. Gould, E. J. Woodhouse,
Eds. (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 1983) pp. 94-111.
7. P. Slovic, M. Layman, J. Flynn, Environment 33, 6 (1991).
8. B. L. Cohen, Nuclear Technology 68, 73-76 (1985).
9. H. W. Lewis, Technological Risk (Norton, New York, 1990).
10. U.S. Department ofEnergy, EnvironmentalAssessment: Yucca Mountain Site, Vols. I-III
(DOE Report RW-0073, Washington, DC, May 1986).
11. W. H. Moore, remarks before the 1989 Nuclear Energy Forum, San Francisco, 28
November 1989.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 19
12. National Research Council, Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1990).
13. W. H. Desvousges, H. Kunreuther, P. Slovic, in Public Opinion and Nuclear Waste, R.
E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft, E. A. Rosa, Eds. (Duke Univ. Press, Durham, NC, in press).
14. Yucca Mountain Socioeconomic Project: An Interim Report on the State of Nevada
Socioeconomic Studies (Mountain West, Las Vegas, 1989).
15. J. Flynn, P. Slovic, C. K. Mertz, J. Toma, Report No. 90-4 (Decision Research,
Eugene, OR, 1990).
16. J. Flynn, C. K. Mertz, Paul Slovic, Report No. 91-2 (Decision Research, Eugene, OR,
1991).
17. L. B. Szalay and J. Deese, Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment through
Word Associations. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978).
18. A complete categorized listing of all 10,000 images is available from the authors.
19. E. Jones, A. Farina, A. Hastorf, H. Markus, D. Miller, R. Scott, Social Stigma: The
Psychology ofMarked Relationships (W. H. Freeman, New York, 1984).
20. S. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge,
1988).
21. K. R. Smith, Energy Environment Monitor 4, 61 (1988).
22. S. T. Fiske, F. Pratto, M. A. Pavelchak, /. Soc. Issues 39, 41 (1983).
23. P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff, in EnergyRisk Management, G. Goodman and
W. Rowe, Eds. (Academic Press, London, 1979), pp. 223-245.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 20
24. The fact that the earliest technical risk assessments for nuclear power plants portrayed
"worst-case scenarios" of tens of thousands of deaths and devastation over geographic
areas the size of Pennsylvania likely contributed to such extreme images (see 25). These
early projections received enormous publicity, as in the movie The China Syndrome.
25. D. F. Ford, The History of Federal Nuclear Safety Assessment: From WASH 740
Through theReactor Safety Study (Union of Concern Scientists, Cambridge, MA, 1977).
26. K. Erikson, Harvard Business Review 68, No. 1, 118 (1990).
27. National Academy of Sciences, The Nuclear Weapons Complex: Managementfor Health,
Safety, and the Environment (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989).
28. E. Marshall, Science 149, 474 (1990).
29. C. Starr, Risk Analysis 5, 97 (1985).
30. G. Jacob, Site Unseen: The Politics of Siting a Nuclear Waste Repository (Univ. of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990).
31. Office of Technology Assessment, Managing the Nation's Commercial High-Level
Radioactive Wastes (U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 1982).
32. S. Rothman and S. Lichter, Am. Political Sci. Rev. 81, 383 (1987).
33. M. K. Dantico, A. H. Mushkatel, K. D. Pijawka, "Public response to the siting of the
high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada: Analysis of risk and trust perceptions"
(Office of Hazard Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1991).
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 21
34. R. E. Dunlap and R. K. Baxter, "Public reaction to siting a high-level nuclear waste
repository at Hanford: A survey of local area residents" (Socialand Economic Sciences
Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman, 1988).
35. M. Rothbart and B. Park, /. Personality and Soc. Psych. 50, 131 (1986).
36. P. Slovic, Science 236, 280 (1987).
37. A. Mazur in Public Reactions to Nuclear Power, W. R. Freudenberg and E. A. Rosa,
Eds. (Westview, Boulder, CO, 1984), pp. 97-114.
38. A. M. Weinberg, in Proceedings ofWaste Management '89, R. G. Post, Ed. (University
of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, Feb. 26 - March 2, 1989) pp. 121-124.
39. L. J. Carter, Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust: Dealing with Radioactive Waste
(Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC, 1987).
40. J. Creighton, Forumfor Applied Res. and Public Policy, 5, 97 (1990).
41. Draft Report to the Secretary ofEnergy on the Conclusions andRecommendations ofthe
Advisory Panel on Alternative Means ofFinancing andManaging (AMFM) Radioactive
Waste Management Facilities (Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1984).
42. D. A. Bella, C. D. Mosher, S. N. Calvo, J. Professional Issues in Engineering 114, 27
(1988).
43. R. J. Bord, Nuc. and Chem. Waste Management 1, 99 (1987).
44. E. R. Freeh in Proceedings of the 1991 International High-Level Radioactive Waste
Management Conference (Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, 1991).
45. K. Krauskopf, Science 249, 1231 (1990).
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 22
46. J. Rhodes, Jr., address to the 102nd Annual Convention of the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Orlando, Florida, 1990.
47. Rhodes' assertion echoes an earlier statement made by a former DOE official, John
O'Leary, in an interview with Luther Carter:
"When you think of all the things a determined state can do, it's
no contest," O'Leary told me, citing by way of example the
regulatory authority a state has with respect to its lands, highways,
employment codes and the like. The federal courts, he added,
would strike down each of the state's blocking actions, but
meanwhile years would roll by and in a practical sense DOE's
cause would be lost (39, p. 185).
48. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register 55, 29181 (18 July 1990).
Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics ofNuclear Waste
Slovic, Flynn, Layman / Page 23
Table 1.
Dominant Images of a Nuclear Waste Repository: Totals for Four Surveys
Number of
images
I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
a Dangerous/toxic 1683
b Death/sickness 783
c Environmental damage 692
d Leakage 216
e Destruction 133
f Pain and suffering 18
g Uninhabitable 7
h Local repository area consequences 6
i Negative consequences - other 8
Total 3546
H. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS
a Bad/negative 681
b scary 401
c Unnecessary/opposed 296
d Not near me 273
e War/annihilation 126
f Societally unpopular 41
g Crime and corruption 40
h Decay/slime/smell 39
i Darkness/emptiness 37
j Negative toward decision makers and process 32
k Commands to not build or to eliminate them 24
1 Wrong or bad solution 19
m No nuclear, stop producing 15
n Unjust 14
o Violence 10
p Prohibited 5
q Negative - other 15
Total 2068